What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
You can challenge a reassessment on the ground that no section 143(2) notice was issued, but only on a specific set of facts. The taxpayer must have filed a return in response to a section 148 notice, and the Assessing Officer (AO) must then have scrutinised that return or varied the income declared in it without first issuing a section 143(2) notice. Where that notice was never issued at all, the argument is strong. It is not automatic. Whether it succeeds depends on the return history, the notice and service record, the Act and assessment year that govern the case, and the binding precedent in your forum. The position described here reflects the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the official guidance available as of October 2026.
Three notices that are easy to confuse
Most reassessment disputes turn on which notice the department issued, in what order, and whether it reached the taxpayer. Three notices matter here.
| Notice | What it does under the 1961 Act | Why it matters for this challenge |
|---|---|---|
| Section 148A notice and order | A show-cause step introduced in 2021 before a reassessment notice is issued. The AO asks the taxpayer to explain why a section 148 notice should not be issued, and then passes an order. | The dates fix the timeline and show whether this step was followed before the section 148 notice. |
| Section 148 notice | Starts the reassessment route and calls for a return of income to be filed in response. | The return filed in response is the foundation of the section 143(2) argument. |
| Section 143(2) notice | A scrutiny notice the AO must issue, within the prescribed period, before examining a return that has been filed. | Its absence is the defect being challenged. |
When the no-notice argument applies
Before relying on this argument, confirm that all four of the following are present.
- A return was filed in response to a section 148 notice. If you asked the department to treat an earlier return as that response, that request and proof of receipt must be on file.
- The AO scrutinised that return or varied the income or tax position it declared.
- No section 143(2) notice was issued on that return before the reassessment was completed.
- You have confirmed which Act and assessment year govern the proceeding (see the transition section below).
If no return was filed in response to the section 148 notice, this argument does not apply in the same form. The question then becomes whether the reassessment was validly started at all, which is a different analysis.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →#1 Best Overall
What the courts have said
The Supreme Court’s decision in ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon treats the issue of a section 143(2) notice as a mandatory step before a return is scrutinised and an assessment is framed under the verification procedure. Later courts and tribunals have applied that principle to reassessments where the return was filed in response to a section 148 notice. A 2026 decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal reproduces the rule and treated the absence of a section 143(2) notice as fatal on its facts. A tribunal ruling is persuasive, not binding on the Supreme Court or on a High Court, so the jurisdictional High Court’s position matters most for a case in a given state.
Read the judgment itself, not a summary, and take paragraph references from the official text before quoting it in a submission.
Rank #2
Section 292BB and the difference between non-existence and defective service
Section 292BB is the provision the department usually relies on for procedural objections. It deems a notice duly served, and bars later objection to service or timing, where the assessee has appeared in or co-operated with the proceeding without raising the objection in time. It concerns how a notice was served and when, not whether a notice was issued at all. The Supreme Court’s decision in CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal is the usual reference for this distinction. Check the official judgment before relying on its wording.
| Situation | What the record shows | Effect of section 292BB |
|---|---|---|
| Complete non-issuance | No section 143(2) entry in the e-proceedings history, no dispatch record, and no reference to such a notice in the assessment order. | Does not cure the defect. This is the strongest form of the objection. |
| Issued but not served | A notice was generated, but there is no proof of delivery or it was sent to an address or email not on record. | May be cured where you appeared in the proceeding and did not object to service in time. |
| Served defectively | The notice reached the wrong address or was served in a manner the law does not recognise. | May be cured where you appeared without objecting in time. The outcome depends on the objection history. |
| Issued after the time limit | The notice is dated after the limit for the applicable version of section 143(2). | A timing objection, separate from service. Section 292BB bars a late timing objection where you appeared without raising it in time. |
Which Act and assessment year govern
From 1 April 2026, the Income-tax Act, 2025 applies, and it uses “tax year” in place of “assessment year”. Current Income Tax Department guidance on reassessment identifies section 280 of the 2025 Act as the counterpart of section 148 of the 1961 Act, and it sets out how proceedings in transition are handled. Which Act governs a particular proceeding depends on its dates, so confirm this before relying on any section number. The equivalent scrutiny-notice provision in the 2025 Act should be located in the official text; do not assume it keeps the 143(2) numbering. Older cases decided under the 1961 Act do not map mechanically onto new proceedings.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Challenge workflow
- Fix the governing law and dates. Record the assessment year (or tax year under the 2025 Act), the dates of any section 148A notice and order, the section 148 notice, the return filing date and the assessment order date. Then confirm which Act governs using the transition guidance.
- Establish the return position. Locate the return filed in response to the section 148 notice. If you asked the department to treat an earlier return as that response, keep a copy of the request and proof of receipt. The argument depends on this return being the one that was scrutinised or varied.
- Check the full notice trail. On the e-filing portal, open e-File, then e-Proceedings, and save the proceeding history. Under e-File, then Income Tax Returns, then View Filed Returns, download the acknowledgement for the return. Check your registered email and mobile SMS alerts, and the notice list in the assessment order. The order’s silence about a notice is not proof that none was issued, so also request the assessment file and the notice-issuance record from the AO in writing. Sort what you find into the categories in the table above. Menu labels can change when the portal is updated, so check the current menu.
- Test the dates against the right time limit. The Income Tax Department publishes time-limit guidance for section 143(2) notices and for completing reassessments. Use the version that applies to your year. The period has been amended more than once, so an older figure from a secondary source may be wrong.
- Raise the objection in the right forum. If reassessment is still pending, file a written objection with the AO before the reassessment is completed, attach the acknowledgement and notice record, and ask that the objection be placed on the file. If an order has been passed, the usual route is a first appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), with the non-issuance ground stated in the grounds of appeal and filed within the prescribed appeal period. A writ petition in the High Court is a separate option. It is used in limited situations, and courts often expect statutory remedies to be pursued first.
- Keep procedure and merits separate. A missing mandatory notice challenges the validity of the assessment process. It does not show that the income or tax computed is correct. Preserve merits grounds in the same appeal, because a procedural win may not end the dispute if the limitation period for a fresh notice is still open. Because the route depends on the stage of the case and the forum, a tax litigation professional who practises in your jurisdiction is worth consulting on the actual record. That review can clarify the options but cannot guarantee a result.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
